Well, there's a 1st level spell that triples jump distance, so I figured it'd be fair. I could just make it double I suppose.

Yeah, happening to me too. I think some of the comments are showing in reverse order, too, like the child before the parent.

Sure, but having fewer accounts is easier: that's the whole purpose of federation in the first place, isn't it?

It's fine now, but I haven't been on Lemmy for that long, and I don't want to have to make a new account every few months to see a new instance.

Sure, I'm aware of idiots on the internet, but if we tried to avoid idiots on the site we wouldn't federate with anyone. Lemmy.world is specifically billed as a "generic Lemmy server for everyone to use," I want the gates to be open fairly wide, that's why I'm here. Not for everyone, like I'm glad we defederated with exploding heads, but we still gave them a shot first and there was at least some more community discussion on it before that decision was made. That's what would make me feel a lot better about this.

I'm not really seeing it to be honest. That first bullet point there seems pretty clearly saying to their users to not be a problem so that they don't get defederated.

I'm sure you can find someone calling to brigade such and such on there somewhere but they have over 20 thousand users total. That's a lot of people to rule out.

Well yeah, I already said I know that's the go-to if you don't like one instance. But I'd still like to be able to express my opinions before doing that. It's not that big a deal but I'd still ideally rather not, y'know?

That first bullet is saying "don't do stuff that's going to get us defederated" to their users, no? It's a bit tongue in cheek but I feel like it's not as aggressive as some people are describing. The whole server came from a subreddit that was very memey/shitpost.

Well the server is described up at the top as a "generic Lemmy server for everyone to use," which feels like it's setting up to be a pretty neutral stance.

The thing is that kind of example assumes that it is cancer. Which is something I'm not happy assuming yet, especially without discussion.

Hexbear has over 20k users. I find it hard to believe they're all Russian trolls, or even that most of them are.

I'm gonna come out and say, even with the statement, I'm not in favor of preemptive defederation like this.

I know the admins of an instance are hosting us basically out of the goodness of their own hearts, and I appreciate that. And I understand they can do whatever they want, and we can move to a different instance if we want. I get it.

But I joined .world because I wanted a neutral instance that would connect with pretty much everyone unless they were particularly problematic. Could hexbear be particularly problematic? Sure, maybe. But I think there's a big difference between defederating in response to a problem and defederating in anticipation of a potential problem, especially since the users aren't given a chance to discuss it. Like, I know we're not technically entitled to give our input if we're not admins, but I think it would be nice, y'know?

If it was just some small instance of trolls that's one thing, but hexbear is actually quite a big instance, so this is a very impactful decision. I don't like it being made preemptively behind the scenes like this.

I take whatever Kobold gives me for extremely deadly and then multiply the difficulty by about three to actually have a difficult battle.

Yup, always go higher than the book says, especially with a high-level party. Tier 4 PCs have so much stuff they can do it's really hard to challenge them, so you gotta get nuts.

Well, somewhat. With the way healing works in 5E it's pretty easy to get people back up, and you can often have one PC be downed and still have the rest of the party doing pretty well. If I'm running an enemy that wants to kill the entire party, and the party is trying to kill the enemy, having one at least person go unconscious is pretty common to make it actually feel challenging. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the party is actually in danger of losing the fight.

Even with playing just the monsters in the book, high-level encounters in D&D will be incredibly swingy because there are a lot of abilities for both PCs and monsters where one character rolling well or poorly can completely change whether the fight is a near-TPK or a cakewalk. The party succeeded on the save against the cool boss ability, well they're probably gonna be fine. Or they all failed, well now they're fucked. The boss failed the save and now it's paralyzed, guess you've pretty much won. Or it succeeded, now you've wasted your turn. That kinda thing.

That's why making encounters with a bunch of swingy abilities can actually tip things back into being controllable. If your boss is getting whomped harder than expected, he gets desperate and breaks out the super-kill abilities. Or if the party is the ones getting clobbered, maybe the boss gets overcompetent and doesn't use their super-kill ability until it's too late.

I've found that at the end of the day, the PCs are generally expected to win, and they have a major advantage: when they hit zero, they get to roll death saves and can be healed, whereas the enemies usually just die. This is actually a huge factor in their favor, and explains partially why PCs can beat enemies that might seem way above their level. So honestly I don't worry too much about making strong enemies, my parties can usually handle them. And if they handle it too easily, it's not the end of the world.

This is a good answer. DMs have a lot of dials to turn to adjust the difficulty of an encounter even just with how they play the enemies. Really I think there are few DMs who play enemies as deadly as possible all the time.

I know I'll sometimes play enemies more aggressively if the PCs are doing better in the fight, like attacking downed PCs or counterspelling healing. Whereas if they're struggling, I might find other things for the enemies to do that'll be a little less mean.

I'm probably gonna end up nerfing the blast at least a little so it feels a bit more fair overall, since a number of responses thought it was overturned. Probably take a damage die off and drop the range a little.

The dual damage types is mostly flavor, I think thunder is a little better than lightning technically? but they're pretty close, and I don't think you'd cast this if you're fighting something resistant to lightning anyway.

With the main mode it seems like it's in a fair spot, then? Better than haste, seems fair compared to guardian of nature? Part of the balancing is also that it's self-buff only, so unlike haste and holy weapon you can't have the 7th level Wizard give it to the Fighter.

I've found they usually show up in my inbox eventually.

I don't want the AoE to take away too much from the rest of the spell, it's like 50% there for the flavor/coolness effect anyway. My experience with taking holy weapon on my Cleric is that you'll often end up dropping the spell from taking damage or you'll hold off using the blast because you wanna keep swinging, so you end up not using the blast anyway. So I don't want the blast to drag down the power of the rest of the spell. Seems like there's a fine line between making it overpowered and making it unusable here.

You have a good point comparing it to ice storm, which only does a little more damage than the blast. Though on the other hand ice storm kinda sucks, doesn't it?

I guess speed buff + op-attack immunity does make you pretty untouchable to melee from most humanoids, that is pretty good. I do want it to be better than haste since it's a level higher. If I nerf the AoE a bit do you think the rest is balanced overall?

It's an interesting read to see what they think people thought of the sets, and it's good to see that some of the issues I had with sets and opinions I shared are getting to them. But there's not a ton here that we don't already know, especially if you're active in MTG communities already. Like when he says

The game has plenty of legendary creatures, so why did we turn what was the most unique group of characters into something more mundane?

I dunno, why did you? Seems like that's a question that could have been discussed, but it wasn't really.

Why would black panthers not be?

I'd say Jaguars are mainly from South and Central America. Central America is technically part of North America, but point is they're more in the South.